Original 12-card horizontal E91 strip may reveal 1909 printing format

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

From "national lithographer" vol 28 an ad showing the maximum stone size of the Hoe number 5 and 3 lithographic presses.




From "aluminum world" volumes 4-6 --vol 6 number 3 December 1899. A brief mention of a two color litho press using aluminum plates being installed at ALC. The first mention I've seen of ALC actually having a two color press, which I've suspected they might have had and used for some of the card issues.



So there were a lot of big presses out there.

Steve B

Of course American Lithographic operated presses of varying sizes. The large presses listed here were primarily employed for large advertising posters, artworks, murals, etc.

Anyhow, its my understanding that for small-size, 6-color jobs (i.e., T205's, T206's, T209's, T213's, etc.), 19" presses were optimum for producing higher quality resolution
plus greater product yields.

And I will remind you, that you were the one who originally informed us that the standard size sheets available (circa 1909-1911) were 19" x 24".

Look, I'm not the experienced printer as you are, but I have read a lot about printing practices. And, I don't see T206's having been printed on any of those large size presses
listed here which were limited to a 2-color printing process.


TED Z
.

[Jayworld]

Just surmising here, but with the amount of work and time that Ted and others have put in towards discovering how turn-of-the-century cards were printed, and in light of the fact that (to my small knowledge) that whole sheets have yet to turn up, is it possible, based upon the large number of T-206 collectors on this form, and with all the incredible knowledge that you all have, to actually reconstruct a "dummy" print sheet of T-206 cards, or similar? I know in several past posts there have been an incredibly array of knowledge and scans brought forth about matching up hypothetical printed sheet sections based upon, but not limited to, the following:

1. Calculated random print marks on the backs of certain tobacco cards that line up correctly when the cards are arranged correctly
2. Mis-cuts resulting in cards with portions of other cards contained therein
3. "Two-name" cards due to printer mis-cut

Just wondering, and as always, I bow to the incredible knowledge that so many of you have regarding our wonderful hobby.

[steve B]

My comments in blue

[QUOTE=tedzan;1404412]Of course American Lithographic operated presses of varying sizes. The large presses listed here were primarily employed for large advertising posters, artworks, murals, etc.

Anyhow, its my understanding that for small-size, 6-color jobs (i.e., T205's, T206's, T209's, T213's, etc.), 19" presses were optimum for producing higher quality resolution
plus greater product yields.

One of the limits to production is how many sheets could be fed per day. That limit was the same for most presses, both large and small. I've finally seen a hard stat on that and the manually fed presses were limited by the human feeder to 12-15 thousand sheets a day. Unless the individual items were a full sheet, higher yields come from larger sheets. I'd done some math in the past based on Scot Readers estimates of production, and with a 19x24 sheet they wouldn't have enough hours in three years to print all the cards from one press, and even two would have been a stretch. Doubling the size to 38x48 would allow them to produce four times as many cards. Quality would be the same. Most of the large posters of the time have few problems with quality.

And I will remind you, that you were the one who originally informed us that the standard size sheets available (circa 1909-1911) were 19" x 24".

That was one standard size, based on the assumed 19 inch width. And, as you've said running it through narrow end first was bad practice. I'm becoming less convinced that a 19 inch press was used based on calculating how many hours the overall job would take. Halving Scots upper estimate and going with six colors plus the back the time would be a bit over 128 weeks just in running time for a 96 card sheet. I'm not sure how much to add for setup, I cant think that moving the stones was any sort of quick process. So figure two presses being used, which still puts it at probably around two years nonstop. They probably didn't run a 7 day week. About 29% less production, Add two more colors like on many of the cards, and that's another 20%+ reduction. I guess it would have taken four presses that size dedicated to nothing but T206s for the entire time between 1909 and 1911. ALC could have done it, but a job that size would make more sense on a larger press.


Look, I'm not the experienced printer as you are, but I have read a lot about printing practices. And, I don't see T206's having been printed on any of those large size presses
listed here which were limited to a 2-color printing process.

The presses listed here were not limited to a 2 color process. The Hoe #5 and #3 lithographic presses were nearly identical to the one in the pictures I linked to. They could print one color at a time. So even going with the normally accepted 6 colors, plus a back, producing a complete sheet would have taken seven individual runs.
The two color press in the article shown was capable of printing two colors simultaneously And I believe it's somewhat likely a similar press was used for some of the cards.


Either way, we've drifted away from E91s, and missed the point of the 18 card strip which has a left margin, but no right margin. Meaning either the PA printer didn't run with a margin on one side, or it's still not "complete" at 18 cards.
Were they printed as strips? I can't imagine they were. Strips cut from sheets seems more likely.
Were they issued as strips? The back of the card says "one of which is wrapped with every piece of baseball caramel. " Barring some sort of promotion like saving so many wrappers to get a strip or the strips being used as a part of a store display I have to go with what the cards say.

I must say I admire the work you've put into all these sets. Without it there would be a lot more confusion. I do wish there'd be a bit more open mindedness, but if sticking with groups of 12 and 19 inches eliminates confusion for you that's probably best. I'm still on the fence about both, as you've found some very convincing groups that seem to work well. I wish for the same things from the 17 camp, so don't take it as just you.

Steve B

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

My comments in blue

One of the limits to production is how many sheets could be fed per day. That limit was the same for most presses, both large and small. I've finally seen a hard stat on that and the manually fed presses were limited by the human feeder to 12-15 thousand sheets a day. Unless the individual items were a full sheet, higher yields come from larger sheets. I'd done some math in the past based on Scot Readers estimates of production, and with a 19x24 sheet they wouldn't have enough hours in three years to print all the cards from one press, and even two would have been a stretch. Doubling the size to 38x48 would allow them to produce four times as many cards. Quality would be the same. Most of the large posters of the time have few problems with quality.

And I will remind you, that you were the one who originally informed us that the standard size sheets available (circa 1909-1911) were 19" x 24".

Steve

Scot Reader in his book "Inside T206" estimated 10 Million T206's were produced between 1909 to the Spring of 1911. I think that number is pretty well in the "ball park".
I'll start with my Exclusive 12 example of a simulated sheet of 96 cards. For simplicity of numbers, I will round off this figure to a 100-card sheet. So, let's do the math.....

10,000,000 / 100 card sheet = 100K sheets

Spring 1909 >> Spring 1911 = 400 working days x 24 hours (3 shifts) = 9.6K hours

100K sheets / 9.6K hours = 10.4 sheets production per hour

I am sure that American Lithographic ran several 19" lithographic presses simultaneously in this operation. And, allowing for intervals of the 6-color process to dry, would
result in a rate of printing several T206 sheets per day per press. Therefore, production of 10 Million T206 cards over a period of 24 months was very workable.


.... v................................................. ................................. 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .................................v

Originally Posted by steve B

I must say I admire the work you've put into all these sets. Without it there would be a lot more confusion. I do wish there'd be a bit more open mindedness, but if sticking with groups of 12 and 19 inches eliminates confusion for you that's probably best. I'm still on the fence about both, as you've found some very convincing groups that seem to work well. I wish for the same things from the 17 camp, so don't take it as just you.

Steve

I truly appreciate these kind words of your's. As you know, I'm an Electronics Engineer, and I have to see mathematical congruence in these studies. And, the factor of 12
is replete within the various series that make up the T206 structure. Alternative proposed printing formats suggested by others on this forum fail to mathematically map in
to the T206 structure.
Furthermore, the 12 factor also fits into certain structures of the T205's. Example....the 12 subjects in the Minor League group. My T205 study is still a work in progress.


TED Z
.

[steve B]

From the centennial edition. Page 26-27 http://www.oldcardboard.com/t/t206/i...al-edition.pdf

"Using the one billion production number for Piedmont cigarettes in 1910 as a marker, one can extrapolate a T206 circulation in the neighborhood of 370 million. In particular, it is known that there were 10 cigarettes in a Piedmont pack, and that a typical Piedmont pack contained one T206 card. Assuming pack-only distribution of Piedmont cigarettes, and further assuming every Piedmont pack had a T206 card, the number of Piedmont-backed T206 cards produced in 1910 is estimable at about 100 million. Furthermore, it is known that approximately half of all T206 cards have a Piedmont reverse. Thus, one can surmise that the total number of T206s produced in 1910 was in the neighborhood of 200 million. Assuming an additional seven months of production in 1909 and three months in 1911 at equivalent rates to the 1910production, the total production estimate for T206 cards nearly doubles to a whopping 370 million!
On the other hand, actual circulation may well have been considerably lower. It has been reported that in 1910 and 1911 bird and fish subjects were distributed in some Old Mill, Piedmont, Sovereign and Sweet Caporal packs instead of baseball subjects. This would likely have meaningfully reduced the number of T206 cards circulated.

I went with half the high end, 185 million. And the high end of the daily output for a hand fed press. 15000/day
185000000 /96 = 1927083.33 sheets.
1927083.33 x 7 colors = 13489583 impressions
13489583 / 15000 sheets/day = 899.3 days of press time. (2.46 years, actually just about right........except.........

That's not counting time for setup, maintainance, and assorted other problems. Or a slower feeder only doing 12K sheets a day. Or the higher end of the estimate being accurate.

Multiple presses for sure.


I wonder - Are the approximate sales of American Caramel known? Maybe we can figure backwards to a possible print run for the E91s from that.

Steve B

[Leon]

Originally Posted by steve B

From the centennial edition. Page 26-27 http://www.oldcardboard.com/t/t206/i...al-edition.pdf

"Using the one billion production number for Piedmont cigarettes in 1910 as a marker, one can extrapolate a T206 circulation in the neighborhood of 370 million. In particular, it is known that there were 10 cigarettes in a Piedmont pack, and that a typical Piedmont pack contained one T206 card. Assuming pack-only distribution of Piedmont cigarettes, and further assuming every Piedmont pack had a T206 card, the number of Piedmont-backed T206 cards produced in 1910 is estimable at about 100 million. Furthermore, it is known that approximately half of all T206 cards have a Piedmont reverse. Thus, one can surmise that the total number of T206s produced in 1910 was in the neighborhood of 200 million. Assuming an additional seven months of production in 1909 and three months in 1911 at equivalent rates to the 1910production, the total production estimate for T206 cards nearly doubles to a whopping 370 million!
On the other hand, actual circulation may well have been considerably lower. It has been reported that in 1910 and 1911 bird and fish subjects were distributed in some Old Mill, Piedmont, Sovereign and Sweet Caporal packs instead of baseball subjects. This would likely have meaningfully reduced the number of T206 cards circulated.

I went with half the high end, 185 million. And the high end of the daily output for a hand fed press. 15000/day
185000000 /96 = 1927083.33 sheets.
1927083.33 x 7 colors = 13489583 impressions
13489583 / 15000 sheets/day = 899.3 days of press time. (2.46 years, actually just about right........except.........

That's not counting time for setup, maintainance, and assorted other problems. Or a slower feeder only doing 12K sheets a day. Or the higher end of the estimate being accurate.

Multiple presses for sure.


I wonder - Are the approximate sales of American Caramel known? Maybe we can figure backwards to a possible print run for the E91s from that.

Steve B

I haven't seen production numbers for American Caramel though they might exist somewhere....

[Pat R]

With the existing 31 x 23 1/2 Obak sheet and the 18 card E91A strip (approximately 27 inches) I think it would be fair to consider with production
estimates of 200-370 million that T206's were printed on sheets at least
as large as these.

[tedzan]

We have gone thru this numerous times in past threads over the years.

You cannot compare Schmidt Lithographic's (San Francisco) printing methods and machinery used to produce the OBAK's with
American Lithographic's (NYC) printing methods & machinery that produced the T206's, T205's, T209's, T210's, T211's, T213's,
T214's and T215's.

Where is your evidence that supports you making this claim ?

Furthermore, mathematically speaking, tell us how your "17" (or whatever) format maps into the following T206 structures ? ?


150 Series
-------------
150-only group = 12 subjects
150/350 series = 144 subjects

350-only series = 204 subjects
------------------

350/460 series = 60 subjects....plus the 6 super-prints (which were usually Double-Printed)
------------------

460-only series
------------------
Exclusive 12 group = 12 subjects
Subjects printed only with 460 type backs = 36

Southern Lgrs. = 48 subjects
-----------------



Hey guys............
It does not require Rocket Science to see that the common denominator in all these Series structures is a factor of 12.



TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Illustrated here is my concept of a 12 x 8 rows arrangement of the 66 subjects that we know American Litho printed together on one sheet. Note the 6 super-prints are shown Double-Printed.
I intended to Double-Print all 72 cards on a longer sheet comprising of 144 cards. But, the Net54 scan limit per post is 18 scans....therefore, only 108 cards are depicted.

v................................................. .................................................. ............... 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .................................................. ................v

v................................................. ....... Six super-prints ............................................v












TED Z
.

[Pat R]

Ted,
Where did I ever mention 17 ? Actually I think they were printed on a few different size sheets but that's just my opinion and your 12 factor is no different. It's a number that only fits in a few places without forcing it to fit.


Patrick

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Ted,
Where did I ever mention 17 ?

Patrick

In another thread, you posted a diagram that shows 17 cards across your hypothetical sheet. In this thread, you first jump onto 13, then 16, and then 18 cards. So, which is it ?

Originally Posted by Pat R

Actually I think they were printed on a few different size sheets but that's just my opinion and your 12 factor is no different. It's a number that only fits in a few places without forcing it to fit.

Patrick

Well, I guess we will have to go thru this drill once more............

150 Series
-------------
150-only group = 12 subjects
150/350 series = 144 subjects/12 = 12

350-only series = 204 subjects/12 = 17
------------------

350/460 series = 60 subjects/12 = 5
------------------
Plus, the 6 super-prints (Double-Printed)

460-only series
------------------
Exclusive 12 group = 12 subjects
Printed only with 460 type backs = 36 subjects/12 = 3

Southern Lgrs. = 48 subjects/12 = 4
-----------------


Yes, the 12 factor is my opinion, and it's based on my research from completing 6 - T206 sets (minus the "Big 3") during the past 35 years.

And, as demonstrated in the above analysis, it does not get any closer than this. Every Series (or group) in the T206 set is some factor of 12.
This is not by coincidence, it is in the design.

So, I do not understand where you are coming from with a remark like that ? Unless you are deliberately ignoring (or do not understand) the
inherent mathematical realities in each of the Series in the T206 structure.


TED Z
.

[abothebear]

Ted, I don't think you are doing yourself, or your theory, any favors by the way you engage others here.

When Pat said, "With the existing 31 x 23 1/2 Obak sheet and the 18 card E91A strip (approximately 27 inches) I think it would be fair to consider with production estimates of 200-370 million that T206's were printed on sheets at least as large as these." he is making a reasonable statement. Your response to him, though couched in logical terms, was illogical (and ironic considering your criticism of his statement about comparing different printers is the same kind of statement you made when you started this thread).

And continually re-posting your factor of 12 math and your photoshop pictures doesn't advance the discussion at all. We ALL understand the 12 commonality. It is insulting to keep banging that same drum as if that proves something. It doesn't prove anything. It is a reasonable theory that fits some evident patterns, but 12 has always been a significant number from grouping, going back to Genesis 35. There can be any number of reasons why the 12 commonality exists having nothing to do with the printing process. Perhaps the printing process is the driver about the numbers, but perhaps it isn't.

Your pattern may work, and it may end up being the actual pattern. But it may not. We don't know. And to act like the discussion is over because you found a good pattern does damage to your credibility as a reasonable thinker. And ridiculing other people's perfectly reasonable speculations makes you sound like you are more interested in your own reputation than you are interested in the truth.

I like the 12 theory. But your treatment of others and your lack of respect for the discussion are pushing me to a place of hoping that the sheet layout is eventually proved to be anything but that. Maybe you don't care, but if you want people to congratulate you if your theory gets vindicated some day, you may want to ease up on the combative way you defend and promote your theory. We all know your theory, and we all know the amount of work you put into it. Let it stand on its own merits.

[tedzan]

Thanks for chiming in here. You claim to like my "12 theory". And, I posted (in Post # 58) an analysis of the T206 Series structures that supports this theory.
Therefore, I have this question for you, instead of being critical of me, why aren't you criticizing Pat for making the following remark ?

Originally Posted by Pat R

Ted,
..... but that's just my opinion and your 12 factor is no different. It's a number that only fits in a few places without forcing it to fit.
Patrick

Darn it, the 12 factor fits into every Series of the T206 structure....these numbers don't lie. Therefore, it is Pat who making the "ridiculing" remark.


TED Z
.

[Pat R]

OK Ted, Here's a list of backs that are considered complete and don't
contain Wagner and/or Plank where sheets printed in rows of 12 don't fit.

460-PD 350
250-Polar Bear
215-Sov 350 Forest Green
190-AB 350 Frame, Cycle 350
150-Sov 150
109-Cycle 460, PD 350-460 25, SC 350-460 42OP
102-Hindu Brown
69-SC 350-460 25
66-Sov 350 Apple Green
52-Sov 460, SC 350-460 30
37 AB No Frame
34 Hindu SL, SC 150 649

[Jason]

Not to get off topic here as I do not have any information to add to the discussion. I see T210's are being grouped into this printing discussion. Within the 3rd Series of this set there is a 20 card subset of Orange Borders. 20 different players/cards that missed a color pass, or one of the ink wells was running dry. I assume all 20 players had to be on the same sheet. I think that could be a clue into this whole thing but I could be wrong.

[tedzan]

If anything else, what we have learned from this thread (before it went off on other tangents), printers resort to many DOUBLE-PRINTS (D-P), or even TRIPLE-PRINTS to fill out a sheet of cards.

What your various T206 back lists identify is the number of SUBJECTS, but what they do NOT account for is the number of DOUBLE-PRINTED cards of these subjects on a particular sheet.

For examples......

The 34 - HINDU Southern Leaguer subjects may have been printed on a basic 36-card sheet with 2 Southern Leaguers have been D-P (or instance Revelle and Shaughnessy are 2 guys that
have greater population numbers).

DITTO for the 34 - SWEET CAP 150, F#649 subjects. Matty (white cap) and Johnson are likely candidates for D-P. So are Davis, Marquard, and Powers.

And, take this from my experience completing an all-SOVEREIGN set....the 66 apple green subjects (which include the 6 super-prints) were most likely printed on a 72-card (or larger) sheet
because the 6 super prints were D-P.

I know this for a fact, since in the process of putting together this particular group I found more of these super-prints than the other 60 subjects in this Series. Here is my simulated sheet of
these 66 guys......


v................................................. ....... Six super-prints ............................................v








TED Z
.

[Pat R]

OK I think I got it now. The sheets for the 17 backs I listed all had double
or triple prints on them but the 48 OM SL's didn't.

[tedzan]

The printing of the Old Mill and Southern Leaguers (SL) is a complicated matter.

For instance, the 34 subjects that initially were printed with the Hindu backs are more available with Old Mill backs than their Piedmont versions.
Conversely, the 14 - SL subjects (includes the six Texas Lgrs.) that were not printed with the Hindu backs are more available with the Piedmont
backs than their Old Mill versions.

This complexity between these two groups makes for a challenging situation to try and figure out what the printing scheme was for the Old Mill
and Piedmont versions of the 48 - SL guys.


TED Z
.